Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of short live-action films


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and might I suggest that the intereditor issues that are across several AfDs find a new forum since they seem to be more meta than topic related. Star  Mississippi  00:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

List of short live-action films

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

At the moment, this is a random selection of the thousands upon thousands of short live-action films which already have an article (e.g. Category:American silent short films has more than 2,800 entries, most of them live-action). But even with this endless supply of entries, this list still contains many redlinks anyway. Seems like an overly broad topic for a list, either needs splitting in many sublists or deletion as unworkable. Fram (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Fram (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Category:Short films shows short films are divided by year, nation, and other categories. You can't delete an article because you think it might be too long. Category:Lists of short films shows some valid list articles for short films. If any red links, that is non-notable entries, are on a list article, then you simply remove them, you don't delete the entire list.  If a list is incomplete, that is also not a valid reason to delete it.  If this list gets too long, it can be split by year like its done in Category:Short films by decade already.   D r e a m Focus  09:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This list was created in 2005. 17 years later, it still is a useless, random selection. If an article isn't helpful, objective, useful, ... for 17 years, and making it compliant would mean splitting it in other articles and renaming it to "lists of ..." anyway, then what purpose does it serve to keep it around anyway. Having this article doesn't make enwiki any better. Fram (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Does deleting it somehow make enwiki any better? It has 43,107 page views  over its life, so some have found it useful, even if its not complete.   D r e a m Focus  09:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, not having this page would make enwiki better. Readers of an encyclopedia shouldn't be confronted with an utterly, completely random selection of some examples of a topic when they search for a list like this. If I go to a library and ask for a book on a topic, I'ld rather have them tell me "we don't have any" than knowingly being presented with a very bad one. Note that List of short films redirects here, so many of the people who end up here may be even less satisfied that they don't get e.g. any animated movies. Fram (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * simply viewing an article does not alone make it useful LegalSmeagolian (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Don’t bother arguing with DF, they vote “keep” on almost every deletion discussion they participate in, especially useless lists. Dronebogus (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * What a crock, Dronebogus, and how uncivil. Your participation here is rude and irrational too.  Dronebogus votes almost entirely against Keeping, Dream Focus has voted mostly for Keeping but not as overwhelmingly as Dronebogus has voted against.  So does that mean Dronebogus shoudl be ignored completely?  I don't want to be unduly incivil myself, but with their incivility, their calling for complete cancellation of another editor, perhaps that would be best?
 * When I participate at AFD, I choose to enter in on situations where sensible-seeming topics are up, and where some effort towards saving the articles seems productive. Dream Focus has their reasons to choose where they enter in or do not, likely choosing to be selective as a matter of sensible time management. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 17:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And may I point out that you are clearly WP:BLUDGEONING this AfD with useless commentary like “rubbish”? Dronebogus (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not think the distinction by genre really adds anything in this case, plus this list contains some feature length films, some films that really are more "ads" or "PSAs" then actual films, and a bunch of redirects to pages that share the same name as the film (see "Silver Surfer (1994)"). Maybe if the list was "notable live-action" short films it would be more manageable. --LegalSmeagolian (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks LegalSmeagolian for your comment. Indeed it is or should be about "notable" ones.  There is a common misunderstanding, i would call it, that the term "notable" needs to be stated explicitly in titles of list-articles and/or that the introductions to list-articles must go on about "only notable examples wanted".  Being heavy-handed in titling and in introduction is one way to go, and in some cases seems helpful for dealing with too many incoming new edits.  But it is more ideal to just convey by quality of writing that this is indeed a list of notable ones only.  For example in a section on short live-action American films of the 1970s, it would be more ideal to start with citing some reliable high-quality sources on the most important short live-action American films of the 1970s.  And to have every entry's importance supported by text (perhaps in a column in a table of the items) and inline citations. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 18:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete impossibly broad list. Dronebogus (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 17:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Category:American comedy short films alone has over 1,400 pages. Even if many of those are animated, there are far too many items in this topic for there to be a page that is not indiscriminate or wildly incomplete. Perhaps this should just replaced with a Lists of short films or otherwise redirected to Lists_of_films (I've repointed List of short films there), but a list being too long is in fact a reason to delete because a huge swath of links becomes diffult to maintain and navigate. WP:SALAT says "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value", and one that would have several thousand items and cannot be maintained does not have value, even if divided by decade. Merely duplicating Category:Short films by decade is a pointless exercise - are you going to do that? Reywas92Talk 15:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Merely duplicating categories would not be helpful, I agree. Providing intelligent introduction to the topics of American short comedy films, in each decade, would be great.  There must be sources towards doing this, wouldn't you think? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 17:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, and I want to say, obviously. Short film is a valid article and it is okay for it to have an included list OR to split that out separately.  About "live action" or not, I am fine with editors merging or splitting by types of these films, based on discussion at Talk pages;  this is not something for AFD, and past versions of lists changed for editorial reasons should be kept rather than deleted in part so that editors can change their minds and rework material.  Wikipedia obviously handles very large lists.  This is not an "utterly, complete random selection", it is divided by decades for example.  I personally like seeing the historic sweep, from a film of carriages etc going by Hyde Park Corner in 1889 to the proliferation of films nowadays.  With the proliferation of short films, of course, it has certainly become unreasonable to plan to list ALL such films.  And nobody wants that. There are reasonable rules to keep it manageable that can be discussed, or are being discussed, among editors at the Talk pages.  Also wp:CLNT, which some !voters seem unaware of perhaps, explains how categories, lists, navigation templates are COMPLEMENTARY.  A list allows for introduction, explanation, use of inline citations and other sourcing, redlinks identifying where articles are needed, and more. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 17:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So Draftify the page if there can be further discussion of short films by decade or whatever. A list can be appropriate to complement a category when entries actually are annotated with discussion of each one, but with such an enormous hierarchy of categories there's no inherent reason that any arbitrary topic that is categorized ought to have a corresponding list. When a list has several thousand items, it becomes unwieldy and of little use. Reywas92Talk 21:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: This AFD is another where I think a speedy keep as an administrative matter would have made sense. The deletion nomination does not provide any reason for deletion.  It comments about the "at the moment" state of the list-article, notes that categories exist, notes that there are redlinks.  It boils down to "seems like an overly broad topic" to them and they note that splitting to make it more workable is an option.  That should have been stated at the Talk page and not brought to AFD.  wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 17:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Trying to de-legitimize a discussion not going your way is a pretty lame move. WP:TNT exists and arguably applies here. Dronebogus (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't bother arguing with Doncram, he has been WP:HOUNDING me, posting empty "keeps" or incorrect "speedy keeps", blindly reverting prods like here, and so on. They are not really interested in the articles or with the actual merits of the AfD, but only want to annoy me. Fram (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete The topic of this list is so overly broad as to have little value per WP:SALAT. The Wordsmith Talk to me 23:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per the reasons above and fails WP:SIGCOV. No effective references.   scope_creep Talk  13:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Just want to highlight bringing up SIGCOV as absurd for this topic, even if I agree it should be deleted. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to creating indices with more thoughtful organization, basically per WP:TNT, because this is far too inclusive and far too exclusive and cannot hope to become satisfactory at this title. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.